MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <z1Vokp3jct_xwR8wt3n6r8t24DqtMpnrogF22YFc0_V3riIMWEq3WBiOriJOm2kVrVgtsu5p7wDTMrN3dLdA8DilhITMXb4tHY6wCnk3y1g=@protonmail.com>
 <QZfbtDnhhbNNFo6859MyCotRPeN-sdotrP2qM-Uitq5DYATVzqIgIb_UEtXETGk941M3HWDzxCmO9j84wjzuKndHOo6kxg3A9qCd8WWlAOI=@protonmail.ch>
 <CANYHNmJsiho0SxUUe7pmpQkkd-xAMnc2H8yHsGB_Urd9dw3usg@mail.gmail.com>
 <oIgV5u9J6iyoWCDtouomT3mNi6D5cxXjOgIWNYiZ_uQIqd2FksfvkIDvAEbdE9L37tAIGAC3QUxzyfBrDYtleBEX80WAO7O6CQNjniE6Omc=@protonmail.ch>
 <uASNM8tOf1FvSUQe6hjlURtgKrnmaF-XNTd5F0KyULurLyk5K-fz9KDWm6Am27pgI4GSysEOepJ7o77V_ghqvaqsc0uyBDwte_peCZuXKko=@protonmail.ch>
In-Reply-To: <uASNM8tOf1FvSUQe6hjlURtgKrnmaF-XNTd5F0KyULurLyk5K-fz9KDWm6Am27pgI4GSysEOepJ7o77V_ghqvaqsc0uyBDwte_peCZuXKko=@protonmail.ch>
From: Craig Raw <craigraw@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:54:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPR5oBMiV-U6Ngi06yZmGo7av-t5RDS4uTgB826_mymORZq42Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Spigler <RobertSpigler@protonmail.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000069028e05bddf0767"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 SomberNight <somber.night@protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Signature and Script Independent Hierarchy for
 Deterministic Wallets.
Precedence: list

--00000000000069028e05bddf0767
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Robert,

I believe many of the same concerns apply in multisig. If one has the
threshold and all the cosigner seeds, the funds in a multisig wallet can
very likely be discovered by checking one of a handful of standard
derivation paths/script types. Is the motivation of this BIP proposal
strong enough to lose this capability?

Craig

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:43 PM Robert Spigler <RobertSpigler@protonmail.c=
h>
wrote:

> (IMO), where this proposal really excels, is mutlisig.  And if you check
> my commits, it actually originally was for multisig only, and I extended =
it
> for multisig and single sig wallets.
>
> ghost43 and Jochen Hoenicke brought up important issues with this propose=
d
> BIP re: single sig wallets, so I will be reverting this back for multisig
> derivations.  I believe that should cover all concerns.
>
> Please view the updated BIP here:
> https://github.com/Rspigler/bips-1/blob/Sane_Mulitisg_deriv/Modern%20Hier=
archy%20for%20Deterministic%20Multisignature%20Wallets.mediawiki
>
> And the updated PR here:  https://github.com/Rspigler/bips-1/pull/1
>
> Thank you,
>
> Robert
>
> Personal Fingerprint:  BF0D 3C08 A439 5AC6 11C1 5395 B70B 4A77 F850 548F
>
> =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original =
Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
> On Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:44 PM, Robert Spigler via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> I (Robert Spigler) will respond in a next post.
>
> Thanks for your comments!
>
>
>

--00000000000069028e05bddf0767
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Robert,</div><div><br></div><div>I believe many of=
 the same concerns apply in multisig. If one has the threshold and all the =
cosigner seeds, the funds in a multisig wallet can very likely be discovere=
d by checking one of a handful of standard derivation paths/script types. I=
s the motivation of this BIP proposal strong enough to lose this capability=
?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Craig</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:43 PM =
Robert Spigler &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:RobertSpigler@protonmail.ch">RobertSpi=
gler@protonmail.ch</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);=
padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div><div>(IMO), where this proposal really exc=
els, is mutlisig.=C2=A0 And if you check my commits, it actually originally=
 was for multisig only, and I extended it for multisig and single sig walle=
ts.=C2=A0<br></div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div><div>ghost43 and Jo=
chen Hoenicke brought up important issues with this proposed BIP re: single=
 sig wallets, so I will be reverting this back for multisig derivations.=C2=
=A0 I believe that should cover all concerns.<br></div><div><div><div><br><=
/div></div></div><div>Please view the updated BIP here: <a href=3D"https://=
github.com/Rspigler/bips-1/blob/Sane_Mulitisg_deriv/Modern%20Hierarchy%20fo=
r%20Deterministic%20Multisignature%20Wallets.mediawiki" target=3D"_blank">h=
ttps://github.com/Rspigler/bips-1/blob/Sane_Mulitisg_deriv/Modern%20Hierarc=
hy%20for%20Deterministic%20Multisignature%20Wallets.mediawiki</a><br></div>=
<div><div><div><br></div></div></div><div>And the updated PR here:=C2=A0 <a=
 href=3D"https://github.com/Rspigler/bips-1/pull/1" target=3D"_blank">https=
://github.com/Rspigler/bips-1/pull/1</a><br></div><div><div><div><br></div>=
<div>Thank you,<br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div><div>Robert<br></d=
iv><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div>Personal Fingerpri=
nt:=C2=A0 BF0D 3C08 A439 5AC6 11C1  5395 B70B 4A77 F850 548F<br></div></div=
></div><div><br></div><div>=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=
=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=
=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90<br></div><div>On Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:44 PM, Ro=
bert Spigler via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&=
gt; wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><br></div=
><div>I (Robert Spigler) will respond in a next post.<br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Thanks for your comments!<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></bl=
ockquote></div>

--00000000000069028e05bddf0767--